Eyeing Terrorist Potential, Pentagon Seeks Vaccine Against Cold War-Era Bioweapon

"Q-fever" bacteria are seen through a laboratory microscope as they grow inside a biological cell. The U.S. Defense Department plans next week to lead a discussion with potential developers of a new vaccine against the possible bioterrorism agent.
National Journal
Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire
See more stories about...
Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire
Nov. 27, 2013, 10:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — The U.S. De­fense De­part­ment is get­ting set to push for a new vac­cine against “Q-fever” bac­teria, an agent with a repu­ta­tion as a po­ten­tial ter­ror­ism tool ac­quired in part through its his­tory as a gov­ern­ment-made bio­lo­gic­al weapon.

The Pentagon’s De­fense Threat Re­duc­tion Agency is plan­ning an on­line for­um on Dec. 5 to fa­cil­it­ate con­ver­sa­tion with po­ten­tial de­velopers of a vac­cine against Q fever, which is also known by the bac­teria’s form­al des­ig­na­tion, Cox­i­ella bur­netii.

The United States in­vest­ig­ated the agent’s war­fare po­ten­tial and the So­viet Uni­on fully weapon­ized it dec­ades ago, long be­fore both coun­tries form­ally de­nounced bio­lo­gic­al arms in the 1970s. The dis­ease also oc­curs in nature and has af­fected hun­dreds of U.S. troops de­ployed over­seas.

It can pro­duce fever, pneu­mo­nia, and nu­mer­ous oth­er symp­toms as­so­ci­ated with a vari­ety of patho­gens.

Cer­tain an­ti­bi­ot­ics are con­sidered ef­fect­ive against the bac­teria, but no vac­cine is presently sold in the United States, ac­cord­ing to the Fed­er­a­tion of Amer­ic­an Sci­ent­ists. An ex­ist­ing vac­cin­a­tion avail­able abroad re­portedly can cause side ef­fects such as abs­cesses and swollen joints.

The United States “should def­in­itely have a Q fever vac­cine,” Amesh Adalja, a seni­or as­so­ci­ate with the Cen­ter for Health Se­cur­ity at the Uni­versity of Pitt­s­burgh Med­ic­al Cen­ter, said in a phone in­ter­view. “This is still a dis­ease that has some pub­lic health bur­den, in ad­di­tion to its po­ten­tial use as a bioweapon.”

The U.S.-led oc­cu­pa­tion of Ir­aq led to roughly 200 “acute” Q-fever cases among U.S. sol­diers, the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion re­por­ted earli­er this year.

Those in­fec­tions ap­peared to res­ult from un­in­ten­tion­al ex­pos­ure to an­im­al car­ri­ers or bac­teria swept up by heli­copter ro­tors. Such nat­ur­ally oc­cur­ring cases rarely cause death, but Adalja sug­ges­ted the agent could prove more dan­ger­ous if in­cor­por­ated in a weapon.

Q-Fever bac­teria in­fec­ted but re­portedly did not kill any con­scien­tious war ob­ject­ors de­lib­er­ately ex­posed to the agent dur­ing U.S. Army ex­per­i­ments in the 1950s.

The United States has been eye­ing a new Q-fever vac­cine for sev­er­al years. However, the agent’s status as a po­ten­tial bi­o­ter­ror­ism tool is fairly new, re­l­at­ive to how long it has been an es­tab­lished bio­lo­gic­al weapon. CDC of­fi­cials only began track­ing Q-fever in­fec­tions in 1999, as the Clin­ton ad­min­is­tra­tion was in­creas­ing the na­tion’s fo­cus on bio­lo­gic­al ter­ror­ism as a na­tion­al-se­cur­ity threat.

A CDC list of po­ten­tial bi­o­ter­ror­ism agents and dis­eases, which in­cludes Q fever, “is de­rived al­most solely from the U.S. and So­viet bioweapons pro­grams,” Adalja said. He sug­ges­ted that the U.S. gov­ern­ment is “sub­stan­tially” more likely to fund de­vel­op­ment of vac­cines and treat­ments for such agents than for patho­gens nev­er in­volved in gov­ern­ment bio­lo­gic­al-weapons pro­grams.

Agents more than dan­ger­ous than Q-fever may have emerged since the Cold-War height of the U.S. and So­viet bio­lo­gic­al-weapons pro­grams, but the es­tab­lished track re­cord of his­tor­ic­al bio­lo­gic­al arms could make them par­tic­u­larly at­tract­ive to would-be bi­o­ter­ror­ists, Adalja said.

This art­icle was pub­lished in Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire, which is pro­duced in­de­pend­ently by Na­tion­al Journ­al Group un­der con­tract with the Nuc­le­ar Threat Ini­ti­at­ive. NTI is a non­profit, non­par­tis­an group work­ing to re­duce glob­al threats from nuc­le­ar, bio­lo­gic­al, and chem­ic­al weapons.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×